Monitor HANA indexserver memory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotation Contradiction: readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true conflict with the stated optional action 'append the result to a CSV history file'. Appending is a write operation and repeated invocations with save_history=true would create duplicate history rows, violating idempotency. The description discloses a side effect that contradicts the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then clarifies the optional parameter behavior, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description does not specify the snapshot's contents or return format. However, the tool has only two optional parameters and a straightforward monitoring purpose, so the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity around outputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for output_file and save_history, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds little beyond reinforcing the CSV append behavior, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb ('Take a memory snapshot') with a concrete resource ('HANA indexserver') and defines the comparison scope ('compare usage against allocation limits'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling monitoring/performance tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (memory snapshot monitoring) and mentions the optional CSV history feature, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Overall context is clear but directional guidance is missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.